This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/synthesis01/

This project was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation under task
order number 8 under contract HHS-100-99-0003. The authors would like to
thank Tracy Roberts for excellent research assistance. The views expressed
in this report are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect
the views of The Urban Institute or its sponsors.

This report summarizes results from eleven studies of former welfare recipients
funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. The studies include administrative
and survey data on the well-being of families who left welfare. Efforts were
made to have these studies use comparable measures to facilitate cross-study
comparisons.

This synthesis focuses primarily on economic well-being. It includes information
on welfare leavers' employment and earnings, income and poverty status, public
program participation, material hardships, and child care use. The results
of the summary show a number of common findings across these study areas.
Broadly speaking, among families leaving welfare, about three out of five
work at any given time after exiting, and about three-quarters have worked
at some point within a year of leaving welfare. When leavers work, they usually
work full-time and earn $7-$8 dollars an hour. On average, working leavers
make about $3,000 a quarter, and leavers' family incomes hover around the
poverty line. A significant minority of leavers return to TANF in the year
after initially exiting. Over one-third of leavers receive food stamps and
about 2 in 5 have public health insurance coverage during the fourth quarter
following their exit from welfare. Finally, many leavers experience hardships,
such as not having enough food to eat, but in general they do not experience
these hardships more frequently than when they were on welfare.

Since passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) in 1996, ending "welfare as we know it" and replacing it with
the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grants to states,
the federal cash assistance caseloads have dropped by 50 percent, from 4.4
million in August, 1996 to 2.2 million in June, 2000. There is concern at
the federal, state, and local levels about the well-being of the unprecedented
number of families that have left welfare:

Are leavers holding down steady jobs?

Do they have the financial wherewithal to provide for themselves and their
children?

Are they and their children suffering hardships from hunger to homelessness?

To help address these questions, the US Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) provided
funding to 10 states and three large counties to conduct studies of families
that have left the welfare rolls. Here, we review and synthesize selected
findings from the 11 ASPE-funded leaver studies that have submitted interim
or final reports as of October, 2000, as well as an early ASPE-funded study
from Wisconsin.(1) This initial synthesis report
will be followed by a more comprehensive report in Summer 2001 which will
report on survey findings from additional sites not included here.

What Are the ASPE-funded Leaver Studies and How are they Different From
Earlier Studies?

A host of states and policy researchers have examined the well-being of families
leaving welfare in the post-reform era.(2) These
studies vary widely in the populations they study, how they define a welfare
leaver, the outcomes which they examine and how those outcomes are measured,
and in their methodological rigor. Consequently, it is difficult to draw
broad inferences about the status of TANF leavers from them. In order to
obtain a broader national picture of how welfare leavers are faring in the
post-reform era and to facilitate cross-state comparisons, ASPE awarded grants
in September, 1998, to ten states and three large counties to conduct leaver
studies under a set of common guidelines. The studies we review here are
based in the following locations: Arizona, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Washington, Cuyahoga county (Ohio),
Los Angeles county (California), and a consortium of San Mateo, Santa Clara,
and Santa Cruz counties (California). We also include administrative data
findings from Wisconsin which conducted its leaver study with other ASPE
funding.(3)

While each study has unique elements, ASPE has worked with its grantees to
encourage them to report results using comparable definitions, for comparable
populations, and comparable post-exit intervals. ASPE has developed a set
of common measures for reporting findings from administrative data. Further,
ASPE has encouraged researchers to ask similar questions in their surveys.
Finally, ASPE provided substantial amounts of technical assistance to its
grantees to ensure that they followed rigorous methodological standards.
In general, the ASPE-funded leaver studies follow these guidelines:

They focus on cohorts of leavers, defined as all families that stopped receiving
welfare during a particular quarter. In most cases, a family had to remain
off welfare for two consecutive months in order to be considered a leaver.
Similarly, ASPE encouraged its grantees to present at least some findings
for single parent families.

For each cohort of leavers, the studies use administrative records to examine
leavers' subsequent use of cash assistance under TANF and their participation
in the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs. Some studies have broader administrative
data on leavers' participation in additional social support programs, such
as child care subsidies, as well as data from state child welfare agencies.

Almost all studies link their administrative program data with data on employment
and earnings from the state's Unemployment Insurance system.

The studies supplement their administrative data using surveys of TANF leavers.
Generally the survey samples are drawn from a single cohort of leavers. These
surveys provide richer information about families than can be garnered from
administrative data.

Note that these leavers studies are not rigorous evaluations of welfare reform.
Rather, they are useful tools for monitoring the well-being of families that
have received TANF and have left the rolls. They can help policy makers identify
the problems that families who have left welfare are facing. The ongoing
capacity built by states and the research community will provide a baseline
for formulating and evaluating future reforms.

Issues in Comparing and Synthesizing the ASPE-funded Leaver Studies

Even with all of ASPE's efforts to increase comparability, there remain important
differences across the ASPE-funded leaver studies that should be kept in
mind when comparing them and drawing general conclusions from them. First,
the status of welfare leavers is likely affected by the welfare policies
states have adopted, the economic opportunities prevailing in the states,
and even the characteristics of welfare recipients themselves. Second, the
leaver studies do not all focus on the same time period. For example, some
studies focus on leavers from the late 1998 while others examine leavers
from late 1996/early 1997. In addition, the survey components of the leaver
studies covered different periods of time after leaving. For example, one
leaver study interviews leavers over two years after exit from welfare while
others conduct interviews six months after exit. Third, although the survey
instruments generally gather similar information, each was developed by a
separate team of researchers. Each survey focuses on topics of particular
interest in a particular state or locality, leading to differences in measured
outcomes. Finally, there are some small variations in how the studies define
leavers and the types of leavers
studied.(4)(5)

Synthesis

We begin our synthesis of ASPE-funded leaver studies by discussing differences
in the policies states have pursued, their economic climate, and the demographic
characteristics of their welfare populations. We then discuss the findings
from the leaver studies focusing on:

the employment and earnings of leavers;

leavers' income and poverty status;

leavers' program participation;

the hardships they face; and

issues relating to child care for leavers.

While many studies report administrative data findings from multiple cohorts
of welfare leavers, we focus on the most recent cohort, especially when there
are comparable survey data available for that cohort. Interestingly, we find
few differences in outcomes across early and late cohorts within the same
study area.

When we look across locations, we find that although there are outliers in
most measured outcomes, there are a surprising number of common findings
in the ASPE-funded leaver studies. Broadly speaking, among families leaving
welfare, about three out of five work at any given time after exiting and
about three-quarters have worked at some point within a year of leaving welfare.
When leavers work, they usually work full-time and earn $7-$8 dollars an
hour. On average, working leavers make about $3,000 a quarter. Further, while
few of the studies reviewed here report leavers' incomes, those that do find
that the average leaver's income hovers around the poverty line. The studies
also show that a significant minority of leavers return to TANF in the year
after initially exiting. In addition, over one-third of leavers receive food
stamps and 2 in 5 adult leavers have public health insurance coverage in
the fourth quarter after exiting welfare. Finally, many leavers experience
hardships, such as not having enough food to eat, but in general they do
not experience these hardships more frequently than when they were on welfare.

Differences in states' welfare policies, their economies, and the demographic
characteristics of recipients themselves all may affect the outcomes of welfare
leavers. Before comparing and contrasting the status of welfare leavers across
the twelve studies reviewed in this initial synthesis report, it is important
to understand the environment in which these families make their decisions
to leave welfare. Because there are so many factors contributing to the
well-being of leavers it is difficult to ascribe differences in outcomes
across studies to any specific difference in context. In this initial synthesis
report, we cannot take all these contextual differences into account
simultaneously; we only note them as they come to bear on comparisons across
studies.

State TANF Policies

Under TANF block grants, states have substantial flexibility in determining
the length of time families can receive cash assistance (time limits), the
penalties for not complying with program rules (sanctions), and the generosity
of cash grants as well as how benefits are reduced as a family moves from
welfare to work. First, consider time limits. While none of the studies reviewed
here include families whose benefits have already
expired,(6) families subject to shorter time
limits may feel pressure to leave welfare sooner than families that are years
away from exhausting their benefits. Conversely, leavers who have nearly
exhausted their benefits may be more reluctant to return. Out of the 12 sites,
seven focus on leavers who are subject to the federal 60 month (5 year) life
time time limit on benefits as of 1997 (see Table II.1).
Georgia and Cuyahoga county have shorter life time limits-48 and 36 months,
respectively.(7) And Arizona, Florida, and Illinois
all have intermediate time limits, not only restricting the total number
of months a family can receive benefits but also prohibiting a family from
receiving their life time allotment over a single time period. For example,
in Arizona, families can receive benefits for 24 months in any 60 month period.

Adult Portion of benefit for six months or until compliance, whichever
is longer

$379

$100 and 50% of remainder

Florida

48 months

24 out of 60 months or 36 out of 72 months1

Entire Benefit until in compliance for 10 working days

Entire benefit for three months or until in compliance for 10 working
days, whichever is longer

$303

$200 and 50% of the remainder

Georgia

48 months

25% until in compliance for 3 months

Entire Benefit permanently

$280

$120 and 33.3% of remainder for first 4 months, $120 next 8 months, $90
thereafter

Illinois

60 months

24 months followed by 24 months of ineligibility

50% until compliance

Entire Benefit for three months or until compliance, whichever is longer

$377

66.7%

Missouri

60 months

25% until compliance

25% for three months or until compliance, whichever is longer

$292

$120 and 33.3% of remainder for first 4 months, $120 next 8 months, $90
thereafter.

New York

60 months

Adult Portion of benefit until compliance

Pro-rata portion for six months

$577

$90 and 45% of remainder

Washington

60 months

Adult Portion of benefit until compliance

the greater of 40% or the adult portion until in compliance for 2 weeks

$546

50%

Wisconsin2

60 months

Minimum Wage Times the Number of Hours of Nonparticipation until compliance

Entire benefit permanently

$628

None

Cuyahoga Co.

36 months

Adult Portion of benefit for one month

Entire benefit for six months

$362

$250 and 50% of remainder for first 18 months

Los Angeles Co.

60 months

Adult Portion of benefit until compliance

Adult Portion of benefit for six months or until compliance, whichever
is longer

$611

$225 dollars and 50% of remainder

San Mateo Co.

60 months

Adult Portion of benefit until compliance

Adult Portion of benefit for six months or until compliance, whichever
is longer

$611

$225 dollars and 50% of remainder

1The 24 out of 60 month limit applies to non-exempt
recipients who have received less than 36 months of assistance during the
previous 60 months and are either over age 24 or under age 24 with a high
school diploma/GED. The 36 out 72 month limit applies to non-exempt
recipients who 1). have received benefits for 36 of the previous 60 months
or 2). are under age 24, have not completed high school/ GED, are not enrolled
in a high school equivalency program, and have little or no work experience.

2All of the policies reported are for the W-2 Transition
component.

Sources: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Data reported from Urban Institute's Welfare Rules Database.
All data are reported as of 7/97.

Next, consider states' sanction policies. In general, states impose tiered
sanctions, beginning with less severe sanctions at first and escalating penalties
for repeated instances of non-compliance. The states conducting leaver studies
reviewed here tend to have less severe sanction policies than other states.
Note that leavers who were sanctioned off the rolls may have a particularly
hard time after exiting welfare and may return to TANF at higher rates as
some sanctioned leavers come back into compliance with program requirements
and rejoin the TANF rolls. Table II.1 shows the initial
and maximum sanction in each of the ten states covered by the leaver studies.
Focusing on the most severe sanction, we see that five of the ASPE leaver
studies (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Cuyahoga county) are based
in states that impose full-family sanctions, removing the adult unit head
and the children from the TANF rolls. Further, Wisconsin not only imposes
a full-family sanction, but it is also a lifetime sanction; families that
reach this point can never come back into compliance and return to cash
assistance in Wisconsin.

Finally, consider differences in TANF generosity.
Table II.1 shows the maximum TANF
benefit a family of three can receive and the earned income disregards prevailing
in the ten states covered by the ASPE leaver studies. California -- the site
of both the Los Angeles and San Mateo studies -- clearly has the most generous
policies, with a high maximum benefit and large earnings disregards while
Wisconsin has high benefits but no earnings disregards. Cuyahoga county and
Florida have modest benefits but generous earnings disregards, and New York
and Washington have high benefits and earnings disregards that are slightly
more generous than average.

While we have not reviewed every aspect of states' TANF policies (for example,
we have ignored work requirements and diversion policies
(8)), we can make some general observations about
the policy context in which these 12 ASPE leaver studies are based. For example,
California (LA and San Mateo studies), New York, and Washington generally
pursued policies that would be expected to produce lower exit rates from
welfare but higher incomes for those families that do leave. Conversely,
Arizona and Georgia may move families off the welfare rolls faster but their
leavers may face more difficulties. Finally, other studies are based in states
that pursue a mix of policies that are likely to have offsetting effects
on the outcomes of leavers-for example, Cuyahoga county has strict time limits
and sanctions but very generous earnings disregards.

Economic Context

One would expect that when jobs are plentiful and wages are high, welfare
leavers will generally fare better than during lean economic times.
Table II.2 shows the 1997 unemployment rates and median
incomes in the states in which the leaver studies we review were conducted.
Note that we report state averages and some of the leaver studies focus more
narrowly. For example, the economic conditions in Ohio may not necessarily
reflect the conditions in Cuyahoga county.

Overall, we find that Wisconsin had both the lowest unemployment rate (3.7
percent) and the highest median income at $43,132. Florida had a low unemployment
rate at 4.3 percent, but its median income is also among the lowest at $32,455.
In contrast, the District of Columbia had both a relatively high unemployment
rate (8.9 percent) and low median income ($32,382). Thus, it is clear that
economic conditions vary considerably across the sites conducting the leaver
studies reviewed here.

Characteristics of Welfare Recipients

Differences in the personal characteristics of welfare recipients and welfare
leavers also must be considered when comparing findings across leaver studies.
Indeed, states whose welfare caseloads are markedly different may well produce
leavers with very different characteristics. Thus part of any difference
in outcomes across sites may be due to differences in leavers themselves.
Further, states likely structure their welfare policies with their welfare
populations in mind-for example, a state with a high proportion of high school
drop outs may emphasize work readiness programs-and this too may affect the
status of leavers.

Table II.3 highlights some differences in the
characteristics of welfare recipients across the 12 study sites we examine
here. First consider the ages of adults heading families on welfare. In 1997,
the age distribution of case heads was fairly similar across our 12 study
areas: in general about 6 percent of cases were headed by teenagers, more
than 40 percent were headed by adults 20 to 29 years old, and more than 50
percent by adults age 30 or older. The exceptions are California (covering
both LA and San Mateo counties) which has a disproportionate number of young
and old case heads and Wisconsin which has a disproportionately low share
of leavers age 30 and over.

Source: Data reported from ACF's National Emergency
TANF Datafile as of 12/9/98. Available on-line at
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip.table2.htm

Next, consider differences in the number and ages of children across our
study areas. In general, three quarters of families on welfare have two or
fewer children (see table II.3). The exception is Arizona,
in which 38.5 percent of welfare families have three or more children. About
10 percent of families have an infant across our study locations, and about
40 percent have youngest children who are school age (6 or older). Arizona
and Wisconsin are slight exceptions, with over 17 percent of welfare families
containing an infant. And Arizona, Wisconsin, and California have a lower
proportion of cases in which the youngest child is school-aged than elsewhere.

Finally, we examine educational difference among welfare recipients across
our study areas and find only minor differences between 11 of our 12 study
sites (table II.3).(9) The
share of welfare recipients with less than a high school degree ranges from
a low of 44.2 percent in Arizona to a high of 54.0 percent in DC and Florida.

Overall, there are few significant differences in the characteristics of
welfare caseloads across our locations. Nevertheless, it is important to
keep in mind even small differences in caseloads, caseload declines, and
the characteristics of leavers when comparing the status of leavers across
studies.

A central goal of welfare reform is moving families from welfare to work
and, ultimately to self-sufficiency. Eleven of the ASPE-funded leaver studies
included here use administrative data from their states' Unemployment Insurance
systems to examine the employment and earnings of TANF leavers in the months
and years following exit. In addition, five of the studies in this initial
synthesis report also use surveys of leavers to examine employment, wage
rates, and job characteristics of leavers. While surveys rely on self-reported
information, they garner more detailed information than is available through
administrative data systems.(10)

It is important to note that administrative data likely under represent the
amount of work performed by TANF leavers. First, leavers who work across
state lines or move to another state entirely will not appear in a state's
UI system. Second, not all jobs are reported to a state's UI system-for example,
leavers who are self-employed or who work in certain jobs in agriculture
or in the federal government are not included in UI data systems. And finally,
leavers who are domestic service workers (like nannies or housecleaners)
may not appear in the UI system because their employers fail to report them.
Thus, some of the leavers who appear to have "never worked" in administrative
data may actually be bringing in earnings in some form. Further, some non-working
leavers may well have a working spouse or partner.

Across the eleven studies using employment data from state UI systems, we
find that slightly over half of all leavers work in the first quarter after
exiting welfare. As table III.1 shows, the first quarter
employment rates are tightly bunched, ranging from a low of 47 percent in
Los Angeles to a high of 64 percent in Georgia.

1 Missouri reports employment data for all cases,
not just for single parent cases.

2 Los Angeles and Cuyahoga counties require a leaver
to have at least $100 in earnings to be considered working while others require
only $1.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Over time, employment rates of leavers could rise as more leavers find jobs
or they could fall as employed leavers encounter difficulties and lose their
jobs. Interestingly, table III.1 shows that employment
rates do not change much over time. Indeed, the median employment rate reported
in these studies is 54 percent in both the first and fourth post-exit quarters.
Wisconsin has the highest fourth quarter post-exit employment rate (62 percent)
and New York, the lowest (48 percent).

While slightly over half of all leavers work in any given post-exit quarter,
it is not uncommon for leavers to cycle in and out of jobs; consequently,
the share of leavers who ever worked over the year after exit is considerably
higher and the share who worked in all four quarters is considerably lower.
Eight of the eleven studies report the share of leavers who worked in any
of the four post-exit quarters. They find that about 70 percent of leavers
worked in at least one quarter. In six out of eight studies over 70 percent
worked (with a high of 75 percent in Wisconsin); 67 percent worked in San
Mateo county and 62 percent worked in New York. Five of the eleven studies
report the share of leavers who worked in each of the four post-exit quarters.
They find between 35 and 40 percent of leavers worked in all four quarters.

Although there are some methodological differences between studies-for example,
Los Angeles and Cuyahoga county require a leaver to have at least $100 in
earnings to be considered working while others require only $1-these differences
do not account for much of the meager variation across studies. Indeed, Cuyahoga
county consistently reports high employment rates despite having a higher
threshold for employment. Thus overall, these findings from administrative
data suggest that the majority of welfare leavers work or have worked since
exiting, but nearly three out of ten have never worked in the year following
exit.

As of mid-October, 2000, five jurisdictions had submitted findings from surveys
of TANF leavers where they asked the leavers themselves about their current
employment status. The responses of leavers generally refer to employment
about 6 months to a year after exit. Table III.2 compares
these self-reported employment rates with fourth quarter post-exit employment
rates computed from administrative data. The surveys consistently find higher
employment rates than those reported in UI wage records; for the most part,
they are about 7 percentage points higher. Illinois' survey presents some
instructive information. In its administrative records, Illinois finds that
30 percent of leavers never worked over the first four post-exit quarters.
In its survey, Illinois finds that only 15 percent of leavers say they have
never worked in the 6 to 8 months since exiting TANF.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Beyond employment, it is also important to examine the quality of the jobs
held by TANF leavers. The most basic measure of job quality is how much the
job pays. Table III.3 shows the quarterly earnings of
employed TANF leavers based on UI wage records reported in ten leaver studies.
These records include earnings information on all reported jobs a leaver
has held during the quarter. The earnings of employed leavers during the
first post-TANF exit quarter range from about $2,100 to about
$3,500.(11) Over time, average earnings rise,
especially in states with lower average earnings; during the fourth post-TANF
exit quarter, earnings range from about $2,400 to about $3,600. Note that
these figures represent total earnings over a three month period. The data
do not provide information on the number of weeks or hours leavers actually
worked to achieve their earnings.

1 Missouri reports earnings data for all cases,
not just for single parent cases.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Surveys of welfare leavers obtain information on the hours worked and wages
of leavers (see table III.4). All five surveys show that
employed leavers work close to full-time on average, with mean weekly hours
ranging from 35 to 39 and median hours (when reported) reaching 40. Average
wages range from $7.52 to $8.74 an hour. If a leaver works 40 hours a week
and earns $7.50 an hour, she would earn $3,900 in a quarter providing that
she worked all thirteen weeks in the quarter. This is higher than the earnings
reported in the UI wage records indicating that some leavers move in and
out of jobs and are not continuously employed.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

In addition to monetary pay, employed leavers may receive non-cash employee
benefits through their jobs. Three of the surveys ask explicitly about
job-related benefits, and unlike employment and cash earnings, there is
considerable variation across the studies. Table III.5
shows that the share of leavers with health insurance is 32 percent in the
District of Columbia and 36.0 percent in Washington state. In Missouri, 53
percent of working leavers are offered employer-sponsored health insurance
although some decline coverage. The share with paid vacations runs from a
low of 31 percent (Washington state) to a high of 62 percent (DC), and the
share with paid sick days ranges from 28 percent (Washington state) to 50
percent (DC). Finally, 46 percent of working leavers have retirement benefits
in DC compared to 21 percent in Washington state.

Income and poverty status are important indicators of the well-being of welfare
leavers. Yet few leaver studies fully examine the income of leavers. There
are several important reasons for this. First, most leaver studies focus
on the first year after leaving-very few leavers are likely to achieve economic
security in such a short period of time. Indeed, most leavers will have low
incomes. Second, income is very hard to measure accurately. Perhaps the most
reliable source of income data are tax records; such records are highly
confidential and are rarely available for research purposes. Most information
on income comes from survey data, but to obtain fairly accurate income
information, the survey generally must devote a great deal of time to ask
about each possible income source and then obtain the amount. Few of the
leaver study surveys could afford to devote this level of time to obtaining
income data. Finally, income is only one measure of well-being, and many
surveys ask about explicit hardships leavers face. We discuss this hardship
information in a later section.

Four of the leaver studies reviewed here obtain data on income through surveys
(Arizona, Illinois, Missouri, and Washington state). Table
IV.1 shows that mean monthly incomes range from $964 in Illinois to $1,427
in Missouri. (12) It is important to note that
Illinois and Washington report monthly income six to eight months after exit
while Missouri examines income two to three years after exit. Further, Illinois'
survey simply asks respondents to estimate their monthly incomes while Missouri's
survey asks a detailed set of questions about income sources and amounts.
Finally, Missouri includes two-parent families in its findings. Thus, these
factors may help explain why Missouri leavers appear to have higher monthly
incomes.

1 Income data are reported for cases in Arizona,
households in Illinois and Missouri, and families in Washington.

2 Income data reported for single- parent cases.

3 Arizona reports income including food stamps;
we present an adjusted version of income, reducing reported income by 7%
because 7% of the average family income of welfare leavers in Arizona comes
from food stamps.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Since about three out of five leavers are working, it is not surprising to
find that 60 to 65 percent of leavers in the three surveys that ask about
the sources of their income report having income from earnings
(table IV.2). In addition, leavers may have access to
the earned income of other household members. In Washington state, 21 percent
of leavers have access to another's earnings, and in Missouri and Illinois,
86 and 80 percent of leavers, respectively, are in families in which someone
is earning money (see table IV.2). Another source of
income for leavers is child support; between 11 and 31 percent of leavers
receive child support. Finally, leavers may receive support from public programs
like SSI, and some may have returned to TANF. We examine the use of public
programs later.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Regardless of the sources of their income, the time period over which their
income was measured, or the rigor with which they were asked about their
incomes, all leaver studies that examine income show that leavers' incomes
hover near the poverty line. Missouri and Washington explicitly examine the
poverty status of leavers and both find that 58 percent of leavers have cash
incomes that leave them in poverty (table IV.3). Note
that Washington's study indicates that 42 percent of leavers are not poor
6 to 8 months after leaving welfare-the same share reported by Missouri over
two years after its leavers exited welfare.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Missouri's study also shows that almost nine out of every ten leavers have
incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty line. Low income leavers
may be eligible for various in-kind public supports such as food stamps,
WIC, child care assistance, and Medicaid or other public health insurance
programs all of which can enhance their well-being and are not included in
these poverty measures. In addition, low-income working leavers can receive
cash support from the Earned Income Tax Credit, currently the largest program
supporting low-income families in the US.

A goal of welfare reform is to reduce families' dependency on cash assistance
and make that dependent period temporary. Part of the measure of success
for those who exit TANF is the ability to move toward self-sufficiency in
caring for their families. As families strive toward this goal, some government
benefits remain in place to aid in the transition off cash assistance. These
include food stamps, Medicaid, and child care assistance. Families who have
low enough incomes and meet other program requirements continue to be eligible
for these benefits. In this section we address the extent to which former
TANF/AFDC recipients continue to receive these benefits over time.

For some who exit TANF, the transition is not permanent, and they return
to the cash assistance roles. While there has always been a percentage of
families who move on and off cash assistance, examining those returning to
TANF takes on increased importance in light of the time limits on benefit
receipt. While none of the leavers in the areas and cohorts we examine here
have reached Federal or state time limits during the study time period, returning
to TANF means further depleting their limited benefit time. In this section,
we first examine returns to TANF and then examine participation in other
government benefit programs.

Despite the relatively high employment rates shown earlier, in most of our
study areas a sizeable minority of TANF exiters return to cash assistance
in the first year after leaving. In eight out of eleven areas, more than
15 percent of former recipients were again receiving TANF at the end of the
first year (table
V.1).(13) There is significant difference
in the rate of returns across study areas. The highest rates according to
administrative data were in Cuyahoga County, with 28.7 percent, and Missouri
with 20.5 percent of leavers returning to cash assistance. San Mateo County
had the lowest percent returning at 8.0 percent and Florida had the second
lowest at 11.0 percent.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Despite some differences in return rates, in general, the pattern of returns
to TANF is somewhat similar across study areas. The number of leavers who
have returned to TANF after just one quarter, ranges from a low of 6.7 percent
in San Mateo to 20.4 percent in Cuyahoga
County.(14) This percentage jumps up by the
end of the second quarter and remains relatively steady for the rest of the
year. While a few areas have slight declines in receipt over time from the
second to the fourth quarter, in general over the first year we do not observe
declining returns to TANF.

There are indications that at least in some areas, these steady numbers of
TANF recipients masks a fair degree of "cycling" -- families returning to
TANF and then leaving again. Eight of the eleven study areas report the
percentage of families who ever received TANF in the year after initially
exiting. These numbers range from 18 to 35 percent. A much higher percent
of leavers ever returned to TANF over the course of the year than are on
at the end of the year. This indicates a degree of movement on and then off
again. For example, Arizona reports that 27.7 percent of leavers in the study
cohort returned to TANF over the next year, although only 15.5 percent were
on in the twelfth month after leaving. This means almost half of those who
returned to TANF had left again.

One difference across the eleven study areas is the time period covered.
At first it seems that earlier cohorts of leavers may have greater return
rates because some of the highest returns are in areas with the earliest
cohort periods, Cuyahoga County (3Q96) and Wisconsin (July 1995). However,
some of the more recent study periods (District of Columbia in 4Q98 and Arizona
in 1Q98) have higher returns than other study areas with earlier cohorts.
In fact, the levels of returns are different across areas with similar study
periods. This highlights that returns to welfare are determined by a number
of factors, so cross-study comparison is difficult. However, within the few
studies that report multiple cohorts, no clear pattern of returns over study
cohorts is observed.

Finally, using the little information we have, it is interesting to examine
how return rates vary by the time limit policy in these areas. As we noted
earlier, shorter time limits may encourage families to leave earlier than
in other areas, possibly families that are less "prepared" to make the
transition. Illinois had a 24 month time limit during the study period and
had high returns and San Mateo had a 60 month time limit with low
returns.(15)

The previous results are all from administrative data sources. For a number
of reasons this source has advantages over survey data for examining program
participation. Survey data can have errors due to faulty respondent memory
and misinterpretation of questions. However, survey data on program participation
does have the advantage of capturing benefit receipt for those who have moved
out-of-state and no longer appear in the original state's administrative
data. Four studies report results on returns to TANF from their surveys of
former recipients (table V.2). These results are generally
comparable to the administrative data results for the same time period. They
reinforce that while a significant percentage return to welfare, many who
return exit again in the time period prior to the survey (which ranges from
6 to 30 months after exit). Of all the surveys, Missouri allows the longest-term
picture of returns to TANF, two and a half years after the initial exit.
At this time, 14 percent of leavers report they are back on TANF in Missouri.

Food stamp benefits can add a significant amount to total income for a low-wage
worker. Families with incomes below 130 percent of the federal poverty line
can qualify for benefits. Generally, TANF recipients are also eligible for
food stamps. Only three of our studies report food stamps receipt prior to
leaving TANF, but all show over 80 percent participation.

1 Q0 represents the month of exit for studies reporting
monthly data, while Q1 represents the third month after exit, Q2 the sixth
month, etc.

2 Studies report data for month after exit, not
quarter.

3 Studies report results for all cases.

4 In Washington, each adult in two- parent case
is counted separately.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Food stamp receipt drops significantly after exiting TANF. In seven out of
the eight study areas reporting food stamp benefit receipt in the quarter
after exit, less than half of leavers are receiving food stamps. The actual
percentages range from 57.2 percent in Missouri to 8.8 percent in San Mateo
County.(16) These low rates are at least in
part due to some recipients no longer being eligible for food stamps.
Unfortunately, without better income information we cannot assess to what
extent this is the reason for the decline in receipt.

Over the first year after exit, five of the eight study areas show declines
in food stamp receipt although only three are large. Those three areas, Florida,
Missouri, and Washington, had the largest receipt rates in the first quarter
after exit. By the end of the first year after exiting welfare, receipt of
food stamps is between 33 and 40 percent in 6 out of 8 areas. Only San Mateo
county and New York are exceptions.

These numbers conceal a more extensive decline in food stamp receipt among
those who have permanently left TANF because they include those who have
returned to TANF and are likely receiving food stamps. Three studies (District
of Columbia, Illinois, and Florida) report food stamp receipt for continuous
leavers, those who did not return to TANF (not shown in table).
(17) The percentages of continuous leavers receiving
food stamps one year after leaving TANF are considerably lower than the overall
percentages receiving food stamps. For example, in Florida 35 percent of
all leavers are receiving food stamps one year after leaving, compared with
only 21 percent of continuous leavers. The pattern is similar in Illinois,
33 percent compared with 21 percent, and in District of Columbia, 38 percent
compared with 23 percent.

A few studies report the percentage of leavers who received food stamps at
any point over the year after exit. These numbers are significantly higher
than the percentage receiving in any of the individual quarters. For example,
66.5 percent of Arizona leavers received food stamps at some point in the
year after exiting TANF, but only between 35 and 39 percent are receiving
benefits in any individual month. This suggests that while the receipt of
food stamps seems fairly stable over time, there is actually a substantial
degree of turnover with recipients leaving and entering the food stamp caseload.

There is information on food stamp receipt from survey data in four of the
studies (table V.4). Where the timing of this information
overlaps with that of administrative data, the results are similar. Missouri
again affords the opportunity to observe program participation a fairly long
time after leaving. In this study, 47 percent of leavers are receiving food
stamps 30 months after exit, the same percent receiving food stamps in the
second quarter after exit according to Missouri's administrative data.

Another important benefit that can support the transition from welfare to
work is public health insurance through the Medicaid program.
(18) Like food stamps, families receiving TANF
are generally eligible for this benefit. This is borne out in the high rates
of receipt, above 92 percent, in the three studies reporting Medicaid coverage
in the quarter prior to exiting TANF (table V.5). Most
families exiting welfare through employment are eligible for Transitional
Medical Assistance and most children in low-income families are eligible
for Medicaid.

4 In New York, four quarters after exit, 45% of
cases have any member with Medicaid.

5 All individuals are included, adults in two-parent
households are counted separately.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

In the studies reporting Medicaid administrative data, however, we see relatively
low rates of Medicaid coverage for both adults and children in the first
months after exiting TANF. For adults, whom we expect to have lower Medicaid
coverage than children, the results range from 26.4 percent in San Mateo
County to 75.9 percent in Wisconsin. Five out of nine study areas reporting
coverage in the first quarter (or third month) after leaving show less than
half of adult leavers with Medicaid
coverage.(19) Only four studies report separate
administrative data numbers for children. The coverage rates here vary quite
a bit, with 61.6 percent coverage in Florida the third month after exit and
27.6 percent coverage in San Mateo County at the same point. However, in
both of these areas, coverage for children is higher than for adults. New
York is the only study reporting higher Medicaid coverage for adults than
children (35 percent versus 34 percent) although the ranking reverses when
considering single and two-parent families together.

Over time, the rate of Medicaid coverage declines for both adults and children
in all study areas except the District of Columbia. As with food stamp receipt,
the decline would likely be greater if we separated out those leavers who
are receiving Medicaid after returning to TANF. The four studies reporting
Medicaid use by continuous leavers show this more dramatic decline (not shown
in table). Rates of Medicaid coverage one year after exiting TANF are
substantially lower for continuous leavers than for all leavers in DC, Florida,
Illinois, and Washington.(20) This is not unexpected
since after six months, transitional Medicaid benefits are income-tested.

Also similar to food stamp receipt, the percentage of leavers who received
Medicaid at any time over the year after exit is significantly higher than
the percent receiving in any particular month or quarter. For example, in
Florida, 68.8 percent of adults and 77.8 percent of children had received
Medicaid at some point over the year, but only 40.0 percent and 50.8 percent
of adults and children respectively were receiving benefits in the twelfth
month after exit. This signifies a fair amount of turnover in Medicaid receipt.

In the area of health insurance coverage, survey data can add a great deal
to our knowledge. It allows us to ascertain coverage by private sources as
well as public and to discover the percentage of persons with no coverage
at all. Five studies report survey data for insurance coverage of adults
and children at the time of the survey (table V.6). The
percentages for Medicaid are reported in the first column. This information
roughly corresponds to the administrative findings where similar time periods
are available, although survey reports of Medicaid tend to be higher than
administrative reports.

1 Employer for adults includes own employer coverage
for survey respondents. Spouse employer coverage, where reported separately
(Missouri and Washington) is included in other. For children, employer
includes all employer coverage.

2 Single-parent cases

3 Illinois is the only area reporting Medicaid coverage
since exit as well as at the time of survey. Results since exit are
58.0% for adults and 62.0% for children.

4 Includes all private coverage.

5 Multiple responses allowed.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

The rates of uninsured among adults and children vary substantially across
survey areas. For adults, the range is from 22.4 percent in the District
of Columbia to 40.0 percent in Arizona. The range is due in part to the range
in Medicaid coverage for adults across the states as well as, to a lesser
extent, differences in private coverage. The lower rate of adult uninsurance
in DC is a result of the somewhat higher rate of adult Medicaid coverage
compared with other areas. Missouri has the lowest reported adult Medicaid
coverage, 33 percent, but also has the highest rate of private (employer
and other) coverage at 34 percent.

The rate of uninsurance within study area is always lower for children than
adults, largely due to greater eligibility for Medicaid, but it still varies
across area. For children, the range is from 8.0 percent in Missouri to 28.9
percent in Illinois. The low rate of uninsurance for children in Missouri
is directly related to the high rate of Medicaid coverage, 68 percent, the
highest of any of the areas. Employer-sponsored or other coverage for children
is similar across study areas.

Other Sources of Public Support

There are a number of other sources of public support that can provide crucial
assistance to families that have exited welfare. These include child care
assistance, housing assistance through subsidies or public housing and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for persons with disabilities.
A few areas asked about receipt of these benefits in their surveys, some
asking about receipt at the time of the survey, some since exit and some
for both time periods (table
V.7).(21) In addition, many working
leavers will be eligible for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
that supplements incomes of low-income workers.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

A significant minority of leavers are receiving housing assistance. At the
time of the survey, the rates ranged from 18 percent of welfare leavers in
Arizona to 27.4 percent of leavers in the District of Columbia (both about
12 months after exiting TANF). A smaller percentage of families received
this assistance in Illinois, 13.6 percent in the 6 to 8 months after exiting.

In addition, between 4.0 and 12.0 percent of former recipients receive cash
assistance from the SSI program at the time of the survey. Since this income
is for persons with a disability that prevents them from working, some leavers
who are not working may instead be relying on this income.

A final source of public support is the federal EITC. Working families with
relatively low earnings are eligible to receive this credit from the federal
government.(22) Three studies report how many
leavers received this credit. Arizona reports 51 percent of leavers, Illinois
reports 40.8 percent of leavers, and Washington reports 65 percent of leavers
received the EITC. Arizona and Illinois also report that a higher percentage
of leavers had heard of the EITC, 66 percent and 76 percent, respectively.
Illinois probes further and finds that although three-quarters have heard
of the EITC, only 47 percent say they know what it is, a percentage not much
higher than those receiving the credit.

Income, earnings, and program participation are important parts of economic
well-being, but they do not capture overall well-being. There are many other
aspects of former recipients' lives that reflect how well these families
are doing. Several studies have collected information in their surveys that
reflect the extent to which former recipients are experiencing particular
problems of material hardship. Because those receiving TANF benefits can
also experience these problems, most studies compare results for leavers
before and after exit.(23) The Washington state
study has a different and perhaps stronger research design for comparing
former and current recipients by making the comparison for leavers to a separate
sample of families still on TANF. While the questions across these surveys
are not identical so comparisons need to be made carefully, the addition
of these measures significantly broadens our understanding of the well-being
of welfare leavers.

One area of concern is the extent to which families who left welfare are
having problems with the basic necessity of having enough food. The surveys
use several measures to get at the extent and severity of families experiencing
food problems (table VI.1). Several ask whether leavers
experienced not having enough to eat or food not lasting until the end of
the month. A fairly large number of leaver families report this experience
in the time after exiting, ranging from 24.0 percent in Arizona to 45.5 percent
in the District of Columbia. One action families might take in this situation
is to cut the size of or skip meals. Illinois and District of Columbia both
report that about a quarter of leaver families say they have taken one of
these actions sometimes or often. Washington reports that 43 percent of leavers
report having cut the size of meals and 27 percent have skipped meals. An
indicator of even more severe problems is having a child skip meals. Missouri
reports 3 percent of leaver families have taken this action and Washington
reports 4 percent have done so. Finally, another indicator of need is families
reaching out to food banks and shelters to help with emergency provision
of food. Responses range from 7.2 percent of leaver families in Missouri
receiving food assistance from a church or community group to 44 percent
of leavers in Washington reporting receiving food from a food bank or shelter.

2 "Since exit" is between 6 and 8 months after
exit for Illinois and approximately 12 months after exit for DC.

3 Actual question is "unable to buy enough food."

4 Percentages are for cut size of meals.
Washington asked "skipped meals" separately and found 22% for on TANF and
27% for leavers.

5 Includes households where both a child and an
adult skipped meals.

6 Responses are for received food from a shelter.

7 Percentage represents those receiving food assistance
from a church or community group.

8 Includes those unable to pay rent, mortgages,
or utilities.

9 Percentage represents those who were evicted
because of failure to pay rent.

10 Percentage represents those who went without
electricity. Separate numbers are available for water and heat in study.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

In the three studies that compare food problems before and after exit, Arizona
and Illinois generally find lower absolute numbers experiencing food hardship
after exit than prior to exit.(24) However,
Washington generally finds higher rates of food problems among leavers than
among those who are on TANF. This difference across studies could be related
to the fact that Washington is comparing leavers to a separate group of those
on TANF, while the other studies compare the same group of people's experiences
before and after leaving. Washington's results may be more persuasive, given
they are not subject to problems with recall. However, it is important to
note that the relative well-being of families on cash assistance will be
affected by differences in state benefit levels.

Another area of material hardship is problems with housing and utilities.
Again, the surveys use a number of different questions to get at the extent
to which leavers are experiencing housing-related problems. One measure is
whether the family has been behind on rent or housing costs. In all the studies
that ask this question, over a quarter report having experienced this problem
since exiting. Another more severe situation is having to move because of
inability to pay housing costs. A smaller but substantial percentage of families
report this, ranging from 5.7 percent in DC to 17.0 percent in Arizona.
Approximately 3.0 percent of families in Arizona, Illinois, and DC report
staying in homeless shelters after leaving TANF (Washington reports a lower
1.3 percent). In addition to problems with rent and places to stay, a number
of families have had utilities cut off because of failure to pay. This ranges
from 5.8 percent of families in DC having had electricity cut off, to 13.9
percent of families having some utility cut off since leaving TANF in Illinois.

Three out of four of the studies (Arizona, Illinois, and DC) find higher
absolute percentages of families experiencing these housing-related problems
before TANF than after exiting. Again, Washington finds that leavers are
slightly worse off, being more likely to have been evicted or without a place
to live than those on TANF.

Two other measures of hardship that were asked in several studies have to
do with whether children needed to go live elsewhere because of financial
problems and whether families were unable to afford or get medical attention.
The percentage of families where children were forced to live elsewhere after
the family left TANF ranges from 5.4 percent in DC to 8.2 percent in Illinois.
The percentages experiencing this situation before leaving TANF is slightly
higher. Washington does not include a similar measure but does report that
3 percent of leavers have a child in foster care at least once after TANF,
while only 2 percent of those on TANF were in this situation.

The percentage of families unable to get medical attention varies more than
the other measures reported, from 8.3 percent in DC to 30.5 percent in Illinois.
Unlike the other measures, this is only one that is consistently higher for
families after exiting TANF compared with while on TANF. This seems consistent
with the significant declines in Medicaid coverage reported earlier.

A final measure of well-being is a more general question posed to families
in three of the studies. The questions all ask families to compare their
overall well-being since exiting TANF to the prior time period. Approximately
one-fifth or less of families report they are worse off or much worse off
after leaving TANF than before, 21 percent in Washington, 15 percent in Arizona,
and 12.6 percent in Illinois (table VI.2). Less than
a third are reporting they are doing about the same since leaving TANF. This
leaves more than half of families saying they are better off since leaving
welfare, with more than two-thirds of families saying they are better off
in Arizona. These results are consistent with the general findings on the
material hardship measures that although a number of families experience
these problems after exiting, for the most part they experience them less
than before leaving TANF. Even in Washington, which found higher rates of
most material hardship measures among leavers than among those on TANF, 79
percent of families say they are the same or better off compared to before
they left welfare.

With work as a major goal of many states' welfare programs, the need for
child care is an important consideration. Child care subsidies are generally
available to employed TANF leavers, depending on income. However, use of
subsidies depends on the type of care arrangement being used, knowledge of
availability and eligibility for subsidies, and ease or difficulty of obtaining
and using them. Concerns about the quality of care being received by children
of working TANF leavers are also important, although related measures are
generally beyond the scope of the surveys conducted.

Three surveys asked about the type of child care arrangements employed leavers
use.(25) Since type of care differs by age group,
particularly pre-school age, and post-school age, some studies show their
results by age of child (table VII.1). A substantial
percentage of families do not have a child care arrangement, other than a
parent or regular schooling. The percentage is higher for older children:
Illinois reports 64 percent of working families with children over 12 have
no arrangement. Missouri reports 60 percent of working families with school-age
children 6 to 13 have no child care, while Washington and Illinois report
lower rates of 10 percent and 18 percent (for all children less than 13),
respectively. The differences in rates across types of care could in part
be due to the different categorizations of care made in each study. Missouri
has higher rates of no child care, but lower rates of relative or sibling
care than the other states.

Source: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

The percentage of working families using relative or sibling care is very
high. In Illinois, for children under 6 and 6 to 12, the rates of this type
of care are over 50 percent. For younger children in Missouri and Washington,
the rates are around a third of working leavers. While some families pay
relatives for care, this type of arrangement probably includes less paid
care than the remaining categories. Among the other types of care used, the
most used for pre-school children are center care and family day care or
babysitter in the home.

Paying for child care is a critical issue for families leaving TANF for
employment. Costs of child care can affect choice of arrangement. Two studies
reported the percentage of employed leavers with child care arrangements
who reported paying for child care. In Illinois and Missouri the share paying
for child care are 44 percent and 40 percent, respectively. Both report this
percentage varies with the age of the child.

At least in these two states, the percentage of leavers who might take up
child care subsidies is a smaller subset of all leavers, those who have a
child care arrangement and are paying for care. Given that many families
have no child care arrangement, and less than half of families who have an
arrangement are paying for care, it is not surprising that relatively small
percentages of leaver families report using child care subsidies. This percentage
varies from a low of 5.0 percent of working leavers with children in the
District of Columbia to a high of 20 percent of all leavers in
Washington.(26) Whether low usage of subsidies
is the result of not needing these benefits, or simply not using them results
from lack of knowledge of eligibility or difficulty in using them is not
known.

Examining results from the twelve study areas summarized in this report,
we find that although there are outliers in most measured outcomes, there
are a surprising number of common findings. Broadly speaking, among families
leaving welfare, about three out of five work at any given time after exiting
and about three-quarters have worked at some point within a year of leaving
welfare. When leavers work, they usually work full-time and earn $7-$8 dollars
an hour. On average, working leavers make about $3,000 a quarter. And total
family income of leavers hovers around the poverty line. A significant minority
of leavers have returned to TANF after their initial exit. Over one-third
of leavers receive food stamps and about 2 in 5 have public health insurance
coverage in the fourth quarter following exit. Finally, many leavers experience
hardships, such as not having enough food to eat, but in general they do
not experience these hardships more frequently than when they were on welfare.

Despite the fact that the results on many measures are broadly similar, the
variation in results on many specific measures are important. The study areas
differ in a number of important ways including welfare policies in place,
the state or local economic situation, and the characteristics of the caseload.
Each of these will likely affect outcomes for leavers. While this report
focuses on summarizing results across studies, relating outcome differences
to each of these contextual factors is important. State and federal government
can use this information to help decide what changes might be made to improve
leavers' well-being. That said, figuring out the relationship between leaver
outcomes and policy, economic conditions, and personal characteristics, and
the importance of each is extremely difficult. Even with rigorous statistical
modeling, the problem is complex and results can be ambiguous.

Beyond this, leaver studies are clearly important for state and local areas
to understand what is happening to those no longer receiving welfare benefits.
The studies here also provide a valuable baseline of information upon which
to build. We would like to point out some of the unique features of specific
studies summarized in this report and some new suggestions that could be
incorporated into future leaver studies.

The first is additional use of subgroup analysis. Several studies included
interesting subgroup analyses, not summarized in this report, such as substate
geographic groupings, sanctioned/nonsanctioned cases, and one or two-parent
cases. These breakdowns can provide a great deal of additional information
on how outcomes for different leavers vary. Another important subgroup analysis
to consider is outcomes for employed and nonemployed leavers. This can help
us to understand how those who are not working are faring. Creative use of
subgroup analysis can add a great deal of information to results and let
us know whether there are groups that are not doing as well as others.

The second way to broaden these studies is to add in additional sources of
administrative data beyond TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, and UI records. Some
of the ASPE-funded leavers studies do this. While this requires both more
time and money, it can add information particularly for areas unable to field
additional surveys. Information on child support, child care and housing
subsidies, and child welfare are a few of the measures reported on from other
administrative sources.

Finally, states can build on these studies by repeating them for new cohorts
of leavers or by following existing cohorts over time. Studying new cohorts
allows comparison of whether the status of leavers is changing as policies
become more fully implemented and time limits are reached. Reinterviewing
or analyzing administrative data for the same cohort of leavers as time passes
provides information on whether employment is becoming more stable, earnings
are rising, and economic hardship is decreasing-in short, whether the well-being
of leavers is improving over time.

The studies summarized in this report use a variety of methods in obtaining
their results. As part of the ASPE grant program, every attempt was made
to encourage the use of comparable measures to enable comparison of results.
However, many differences in methodology remain. This appendix attempts to
give an overview of the differences. We do not attempt to connect differences
in results to differences in methods. The primary areas of differences include
the type of data being used, the cohort of exiters, and the specific types
of cases included or excluded. The studies that have included surveys up
to this point, have additional differences in response rates, timing of survey,
and survey instrument. This appendix describes the extent and nature of these
differences.

All of the studies focus on at least one cohort of families leaving the TANF/AFDC
program. For the most part, the definition of who is a "welfare leaver" is
comparable across studies. Most of the studies included as leavers those
who received welfare in a specific month but did not receive any benefits
for the following two months. The District of Columbia is an exception here,
defining leavers as those who stopped receiving in a given month and did
not receive at all in the next calendar month. Arizona reports results for
both 1 month and 2 month leavers.

The broader difference in studies was the timing of the cohort(s) studied
(table A1). Many include an early and late cohort, although
some include multiple cohorts. Illinois includes six cohorts of information
and a measure that combines information across all these cohorts. Six of
the studies include a cohort from one of the quarters of 1996. Four of the
studies include information from a cohort in 1998. Given the many changes
occurring in welfare programs, caseloads, and the economy across these time
periods, we expect that the particular timing of the cohort examined may
make a difference in results. In our summary, we focus on the most recent
complete cohort information available.

Single Parents, Two Parents; Child Only; One or Two Parent Transitioning
to Child Only

1 Jurisdictions with administrative data only will
add survey data to their final reports (forthcoming).

2 Missouri will include a geographic subset in Section
D of a forthcoming report.

Sources: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Another methodological issue that may be important for interpreting results
is the type of cases included and excluded in the study sample. Most of the
studies exclude exiting child only cases completely or present results separately
for non-child-only cases. In addition, a number of the studies exclude exiting
two-parent cases or present results for single-parent cases separately. This
allows comparisons on the subset of single-parent cases for most studies.
The exceptions are District of Columbia and Missouri. However, the percentage
of two-parent cases among the leaver population is less than 2 percent in
the District of Columbia and less than 4 percent in Missouri.

Several of the studies present results on specific subgroups of leavers.
Arizona presents results for sanctioned and non-sanctioned leavers separately.
For their early cohort, Arizona presents separates urban and rural results.
Illinois also presents a geographic break, reporting Cook County (Chicago)
separately from downstate Illinois. Washington compares results for leavers
with outcomes for current TANF recipients. Several studies report administrative
program participation data for continuous leavers, that is, those who exit
TANF and do not return in a specified time period (usually a year).

Administrative Data

All of the studies use some source of administrative data, at least information
on welfare benefit recipiency (table A2). Some studies
had access to rich databases of linked administrative data that included
a wide variety of program participation much beyond welfare receipt. Given
the scope of resources available, unless areas had on-going efforts to create
and maintain multi-link/multi-program databases, reporting was more limited.
The resources in time and money to link data accurately can be very high.
In addition to program participation, most studies (with the exception of
District of Columbia) used unemployment insurance administrative data to
get information on employment and earnings.

1 Substantiated child protective service reports,
out-of-home placements, and use of emergency services.

2 These are the topics covered to date in the current,
preliminary reports. Forthcoming reports will cover other topics.

3 Child abuse and neglect referrals and out-of-home
placements.

Sources: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

Other than TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, and employment data, several studies
reported additional information from administrative data sources. These include
use of child care subsidies, receipt of child support payments, child welfare
reports of abuse and neglect, and use of emergency assistance. The specific
studies that have these additional data and report on it in their study are
listed in the table.

The length of follow-up for any of these sources of administrative data varied
greatly. Some studies reported as much as two years of follow-up data for
certain cohorts. The majority reported one year of data. Illinois had a combined
rolling cohort, including as much information for each of the six cohorts
that they had up to the date of analysis.

Survey Data

Five of the twelve study areas had completed reports with results from survey
data as of mid-October, 2000. There are many specific methodological differences
across each survey: how the sample was selected, how potential respondents
were located initially and follow-up location efforts, who conducted the
survey, length of the survey and payment for completed surveys. All of these
can affect a surveys response rates (the percent of all potential respondents
who completed the survey) and potentially its results. We do not report on
all these differences here, but focus on final sample size and response rate.
Additional differences in the surveys include the exit cohort selected for
the survey and the time after exit that the survey was conducted
(table A3). One common factor to all the surveys is they
included a mixed-mode of collection, that is, they used telephone surveys
as well as in-person surveys.

Sources: See Appendix B for a complete listing of the
leavers studies referenced.

The final sample size of the survey information varied from 987 in Washington
to 277 in the District of Columbia. The response rates varied somewhat as
well. Three of the five had response rates over 70 percent. The District
of Columbia had a response rate of 61 percent while Illinois's was 51 percent.

Four out of five of the surveys focus on exit cohorts in 1998, late 1998
for three (Illinois, Washington, and District of Columbia). Missouri surveys
the earliest exit cohort, fourth quarter of 1996, but is therefore able to
survey respondents at a longer follow-up period, 30 months after initially
exiting TANF. Their response rate does not seem to have suffered as a result
of the long time between leaving welfare and being interviewed, relative
to the other surveys. The remaining surveys interview leavers at from six
to eight months after leaving (Illinois and Washington) or about 12 months
after leaving (Arizona and District of Columbia). Results in this summary
report try to point out the differences in timing of cohorts and time between
survey and exiting.

Julnes, G., Halter, A., Anderson, S., Frost-Kumpf, L., Schuldt, R., Staskon,
F., and Ferrara, B. (forthcoming). Illinois Study of Former TANF
Clients, Final Report. Institute for Public Affairs, University
of Illinois at Springfield and School of Social Work, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.

Missouri

Midwest Research Institute (June 2000), Chapter 1- Employment and Earnings
of Former AFDC Recipients in Missouri, Chapter 2- Household Income and Poverty,
Chapter 3- The Continuing Use of Assistance by Former Missouri AFDC Recipients,
and Chapter 4- The Continuing Use of Assistance by Former Missouri
AFDC Recipients. Interim Reports for the Missouri Department of
Social Services.

Rockefeller Institute, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance, and the New York State Department of Labor (December 1999).
After Welfare: A Study of Work and Benefit Use After Case
Closing. Revised Interim Report

Du, J., with Fogarty, D., Hopps, D., and Hu, J. ( February 2000).
A Study of Washington State TANF Leavers and TANF Recipients. Findings
from the April- June 1999 Telephone Survey. Final Report.
Washington Department of Social and Health Services.

Wisconsin

Cancian, M., Haveman, R., Kaplan, T., and Wolfe, B. (January 1999).
Post- Exit Earnings and Benefit Receipt Among Those Who Left AFDC in
Wisconsin. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.

Cuyahoga County

Coulton, C. & Verma, N. (May 1999). Employment and Return
to Public Assistance Among Single, Female Headed Families Leaving AFDC in
Third Quarter, 1996, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Prepared for Cuyahoga
Work and Training.

1. The Wisconsin study uses a slightly different definition
of leavers than the later ASPE-funded studies. The results reported here
are based on supplementary work done by the authors of the Wisconsin study
which makes the findings more comparable with those reported in subsequent
ASPE-funded work.

2. Many of these studies are reviewed in Loprest and
Brauner (1999), GAO (1999), Acs and Loprest (2000), Isaacs and Lyon (2000),
and DHHS/ASPE (2000).

3. As of October, 2000, findings are not yet available
from Massachusetts, but are expected soon. A fourteenth leaver study in South
Carolina funded under a different mechanism, will have findings in 2001.

4. Most studies require a family to remain off welfare
for two months to be considered a leaver. Arizona uses a one month requirement
throughout its study but presents supplementary findings using a two month
definition. In this synthesis report, we focus on the two month findings
from Arizona for comparability. DC requires a leaver to remain off welfare
one full calendar month.

5. Most studies examine families that left welfare during
a given three month period. Wisconsin's leaver cohort is made up of leavers
from a twelve-month period.

6. Massachusetts' leaver study is not reviewed here because
it was not complete by October 2000; however, a portion of welfare recipients
in the state have reached their interim time limits and Massachusetts report
concentrates heavily on time limited v. other TANF leavers. The Massachusetts
report will be included in our final report in Summer 2001.

7. The cohort of leavers from Cuyahoga county, Ohio,
which we examine in this report (3Q96) pre-dates the imposition of the 36
month time limit.

9. For Wisconsin, 73.5 percent of case heads whose
educational attainment is reported have less than 12 years of schooling.

10. Throughout the report, we include administrative
results for Single-Parent families and note the few exceptions. Because three
out of five surveys primarily report results for all cases together, our
survey findings are for all cases except where otherwise noted.

11. Note that we report nominal monetary values. While
inflation was very low during the late 1990s, a two-year difference between
studies can represent about a five percent difference in purchasing power.

13. Some studies report quarterly information (receipt
at some point within a three-month quarter) and some present monthly information
(receipt in particular month). Studies reporting quarterly information will
report a higher percentage than if they reported a monthly number. For example,
the New York study shows that 17 percent of original exiters were receiving
TANF in the twelfth month after leaving, but 19 percent received at some
point in the fourth quarter after leaving. However, across studies we do
not observe any pattern of difference between monthly and quarterly reports.
Table V.1 indicates whether numbers reported are monthly
or quarterly.

14. Recall that most of these studies require that a
family remain off welfare for at least two months to be considered a leaver.
This common leaver definition may contribute the similar, low return rates
across sites.

15. Cuyahoga county has a 36 month time limit but it
was not implemented until 10/97, after the study period. California's time
limit was implemented in 1/98.

16. Despite reporting 100 percent receipt of food stamps
in the month of exit, San Mateo County has very low percentages of food stamp
receipt across the entire post-exit period. This is due to the relatively
low rates of returning to TANF (most of whom would be eligible for Food stamps)
as well as very low rates of food stamp receipt among families not receiving
cash assistance. Note that high maximum benefit levels and high earnings
disregards policies in California may result in higher incomes (and less
eligibility for food stamps) among families who leave welfare in California
as compared with other states.

17. Wisconsin also presents results for continuous leavers;
however, its findings for all leavers and continuous leavers cannot be compared
in the same way as we do for other sites because Wisconsin uses a slightly
different leaver definition for the two groups.

18. A number of states also have programs that extend
public coverage to children at higher income levels. While these sometimes
go by names other than Medicaid, we are including them under Medicaid here.

19. Washington is reporting results for all individuals,
so it may also have lower Medicaid coverage for adults alone.

20. Just as in the case of food stamps, Wisconsin presents
Medicaid findings for continuous leavers but they cannot be compared to all
leavers because of differences in the definition of leaver across the two
groups.

21. Leavers may also receive assistance through the
school lunch program, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutritional
program, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and foster care programs.
These sources of support are not consistently reported in the survey-based
studies reviewed here and are excluded from this initial synthesis report.
Child care assistance is discussed later in this report.

22. As of 1998, three of our study areas had state EITCs
as well, District of Columbia, Illinois, and New York.

23. Arizona, Illinois, and Washington use a 6-month
window for their questions. Missouri asks about the past month, and the District
of Columbia asks about the time while on TANF and the time since exiting
TANF, about 12 months.

24. We do not discuss here whether these differences
are statistically significant, which is reported in some studies and not
others.

25. District of Columbia also asks about child care
arrangements used by employed leavers, but because the results are not broken
out by age in the report, making comparable categorizations difficult, the
results are excluded here. Arizona reports child care arrangements of all
leavers, but does not separately report arrangements for employed leavers,
so these results are also excluded.

26. In District of Columbia an additional 2.5 percent
of leavers report getting assistance from other private sources which could
include government funds given to community or church groups. Missouri reports
that 36 percent of leavers used child care subsidies at some point over the
30 months since exit.